Visiting with Ahmadinejad during a trip to Tehran, Iraqi President al Maliki is promsing greater co-operation with Iran in regional security matters and asking for help training and equiping the Iraqi Army.

In other words, he's leading Iraq into Iran's orbit and establishing his government, bought and payed for with American blood, as a partner in the rise of Iranian dominance of the Middle East.

Al Maliki also vowed that Iraq would never be used as a spring-board for an attack on their "friendly" neighbor, Iran.

THIS is what we get for the lives of our soldiers. Thank you George Bush.



President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iraq is not being subjected to international sanctions under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter since there is no longer a Saddam Hussein, the executed dictator.

In a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki on Sunday, Ahmadinejad recalled that he discussed the issue with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the sidelines of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) meeting in Italy, Fars News Agency reported.

He noted that Iraq has suffered a great deal in the past few decades.
“Today Iraq is at a sensitive juncture, but an effulgent future awaits the Iraqi nation and leadership due to its strong people,“ he said.
The president emphasized that all countries should help the Iraqi government overcome the prevailing sensitive situation.

“Neighbors, friends and the UN should help establish stability and security in Iraq. Of course, neighbors shoulder more responsibility in this respect,“ he said.

Al-Maliki, for his part, underlined the need to bolster bilateral ties.

“Development and stability of Iraq will be established through further expansion of mutual ties,“ he said.

He recalled that Iraq is firm about leaving a positive impression on the international community.

“Today, the Iraqi political groups stand united with regard to national solidarity and serving the public,“ he said.

The Iraqi premier emphasized that the internal situation in Iraq is much better than in the past and large areas of the country are safe and secure.

“A stable Iraq is to the benefit of the region and the world,“ he said.

Al-Maliki recalled that Iraqi leaders are worried and frustrated with the sanctions imposed on Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein and request the international community to rescue Iraq from the evil of sanctions.

In an earlier meeting with Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki late Saturday, Al-Maliki sought to reassure Tehran over the planned security pact with Washington, vowing that Iraq would never be used as a platform to harm its friendly neighbor Iran.

“We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and neighbors,“ he said.

Maliki arrived in Tehran on Saturday evening for a three-day visit. The premier, on his third visit to Tehran since taking office two years ago, was welcomed by First Vice President Parviz Davoudi.

The prime minister, who lived in exile in Iran during the Saddam dictatorship, made his first official trip to Iran in September 2006.
The first visit by an Iraqi premier since the US-led invasion was made by Maliki’s predecessor Ibrahim Al-Jaafari in July 2005.

Promoting Regional Security

Also on Sunday, Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammd Najjar said defense ties between Tehran and Baghdad will help forge the independence of regional security in a meeting with his Iraqi counterpart Lieutenant General Abdel-Qader Mohammad Jassem Al-Abidi, Fars News Agency reported.

Najjar noted that the two sides also agreed over land and marine border demarcations, and ways of demining border areas, in addition to defense, training and logistic cooperation.

Referring to the strategic location of both Iran and Iraq in the region, the Iranian defense minister calls for strengthening ties with this war-shattered country.

“Iran’s policy is based on defending the Iraqi government,“ he said, highlighting the importance of peace and security in Iraq.
“The two countries have good potential for cooperation in defense and security fields,“ Najjar said.

Al-Abidi, for his part, stressed that Iraq will not accept any anti-Iran article in the proposed security pact with the US.
“Iraq is preparing a strong army and needs Iran’s expertise in the defense field,“ he said, noting that an independent Iraqi Army will promote regional security.

The two sides also agreed during the meeting to hold more consultations in future. Al-Abidi is accompanying Al-Maliki during his visit to Tehran.


http://www.iran-daily.com/1387/3144/html/

I will agree that. on the face of it, it seems alarming. However, if you are the Iraqi PM, how can you not seek peaceful relations with your neighbors?

Is it possible that through Iraqi diplomacy, the situation between the US and Iran could be normalized?

This assumes, of course, that the Iranians are dealing with good faith. They are not known for that in many regards.

Thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by Hawk166:
I will agree that. on the face of it, it seems alarming. However, if you are the Iraqi PM, how can you not seek peaceful relations with your neighbors?

Is it possible that through Iraqi diplomacy, the situation between the US and Iran could be normalized?

This assumes, of course, that the Iranians are dealing with good faith. They are not known for that in many regards.

Thoughts?

Of course relations could be "normalized," but only by our acceptance of whatever they want.

We have little leverage over them and less that we can threaten them with and "negotiating" with them now would be merely an exercise in surrender.

Right now, they have us on the ropes in Iraq and intend to keep us there as long as possible because it weakens us and prevents us taking more forceful actions elsewhere.

Of course, the current administration has played right into their hands by refusing to create an Army big enough to accomplish it's global mission and by it's reckless adventurism on top of that. Yet, that does not stop them from beating the drums of war against Iran, in spite of the fact that we lack the military power to finish the two we've got going already.

Worse, we've gone hat in hand to Tehran several times begging them to help us get out of the mess in Iraq, a mess which Tehran is assidiouslly promoting for their own interests. They must spend a lot time sitting around laughing at this administration's bumbling and stupidity.

Al Malikis' cozying up to the Mullah's is an indication of just how much we are losing to Tehran. Were he convinced that we will end up the dominant power in the region, he wouldn't be doing this. He's not. Even he, whose whole life depends upon our support, can see the hand-writing on the wall: Iran will be the winner of all this and America will be seriously weakened, if not defeated outright.

He's not the only one who sees the future in linkage with Tehran instead of Washington. Our erstwhile "allies" in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been keeping the road hot going to Tehran too, making deals for increased co-operation with the new masters of the Gulf and Turkey has admitted they've been conducting joint operations with the Iranians against the Kurds.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse this will get.

ps: I noticed there have been several hits on this thread, but only one comment. That's not suprising as I've posted similar stuff before and nobody wants to talk about it. To do so might destroy their illusions about how well the Bush strategy is working.

I pretty much have to go with Hawk on this one. No matter how this shakes out one day we're going home. Iran is still going to be there. I think I remember early on that you were one of us who predicted that Iran would be the one raking in the chips when this hand is over.

If you were in Malikis' shoes what would you do? I guess I'd be trying to make sure my more powerful neighbor would not feel the need to kill me.

I don't see us being defeated outright but I do see the need to regroup, lick our wounds and come back with a better game.

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:
I pretty much have to go with Hawk on this one. No matter how this shakes out one day we're going home. Iran is still going to be there. I think I remember early on that you were one of us who predicted that Iran would be the one raking in the chips when this hand is over.

If you were in Malikis' shoes what would you do? I guess I'd be trying to make sure my more powerful neighbor would not feel the need to kill me.

I don't see us being defeated outright but I do see the need to regroup, lick our wounds and come back with a better game.

At the very moment we are typing in THIS thread, the administration is busy claiming that Iran is trying to destroy the new Iraqi government, smuggling in arms, training "terrorists," and doing everything possibe to get rid of them.

Now one of these pictures is false.Aldiminajad, holding hands with Maliki? Now I ask, since "Iran and Aldiminjad" are the New Hitler, what's he doing holding hands with Hitler?

Dave

It appears that they bet on the wrong horse. And their trillion dollar bet maybe headed for the crapper.

quote:

Originally posted by Hawk166:
I will agree that. on the face of it, it seems alarming. However, if you are the Iraqi PM, how can you not seek peaceful relations with your neighbors?

Is it possible that through Iraqi diplomacy, the situation between the US and Iran could be normalized?

This assumes, of course, that the Iranians are dealing with good faith. They are not known for that in many regards.

Thoughts?

I agree with you. Ahmadinejad and his backers lost a bunch of seats in the lastest Iranian elections. The Iranian people want Iran to stop throwing money away on foreign adventurism and start concentrating on the Iranian economy. Most of 'em like America better than they do their whack job mullahs and current president. Hell, we were negotiating with their previous president -- but then President Bush decided that talk was "appeasement" and cut off the talks, making the previous Iranian president and his policy of engagement with America look foolish.

It's an election year and the president has reminded us that "talking with Iran" is "appeasement". So Prime Minister Maliki is an "appeaser" and the folks who want us to keep backing him are objectively pro-"appeasement".

Of course, Iran has become THE regional power in that part of the world over the last 7 years. So I guess the president is just facing up to reality by "appeasing" Iran.

Maybe his talk of "appeasement" being a bad thing is just a sham for gullible voters?

Hmm... Looks like the "every thing's coming up roses in Iraq" crowd doesn't want to touch this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Hawk166:
I will agree that. on the face of it, it seems alarming. However, if you are the Iraqi PM, how can you not seek peaceful relations with your neighbors?

I think that is what is really going on here. They are tired of war and want a peaceful border not any different then Israel.

They have also made similar approaches to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They have pretty solid relations with Jordan. Not sure about Syria or Turkey.

Hi!
It seems to me that the 'news summary' presented here is from the 'Fars' Iranian news agency. A news agency of a totalitarian regime spins the news so that they look like they have the upper hand. I think you will be impressed/encouraged by the analysis of Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post, English language Israeli newspaper of the Malilki visit to Iran.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=121265972285...JPArticle%2FShowFull

Stillkit, do you know where Maliki was back in the 70s?

Their is an Oil Company out of Calif. called Unical. Back in those
days he was the Ambassador of the middle east for Unical Oil. Does`nt
it seem kinda strange what he did back then and what he does now.

quote:

Originally posted by gzo2:
Stillkit, do you know where Maliki was back in the 70s?

Their is an Oil Company out of Calif. called Unical. Back in those
days he was the Ambassador of the middle east for Unical Oil. Does`nt
it seem kinda strange what he did back then and what he does now.

No stranger than Afghan President Kharzi being a lawyer for a Houston firm which represented Chevron. Or, Chevron's SS Condoleeza Rice. Or that John McCain's wife sits on the Board of Conoco/Phillips. Or that Ahmed Chalabi has long, personal and business ties with Paul Wolfowitz (or that he's wanted for embezzling millions from his own bank in Jordan.)

quote:

Originally posted by gzo2:
Stillkit, do you know where Maliki was back in the 70s?

Their is an Oil Company out of Calif. called Unical. Back in those
days he was the Ambassador of the middle east for Unical Oil. Does`nt
it seem kinda strange what he did back then and what he does now.

Is that you in the avatar, and if so , what are you working on?

quote:

Originally posted by LAPB:
Hi!
It seems to me that the 'news summary' presented here is from the 'Fars' Iranian news agency. A news agency of a totalitarian regime spins the news so that they look like they have the upper hand. I think you will be impressed/encouraged by the analysis of Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post, English language Israeli newspaper of the Malilki visit to Iran.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=121265972285...JPArticle%2FShowFull

Interesting article about all this from an Israeli standpoint.

But, the author assumes Maliki said something harsh to Tehran and builds a scenario on that, without any proof at all that he did so. Nice supposition, but the conclusions drawn from that are a house of cards.

She also gives credit to Maliki for the cessation of fighting in Basra and Sadr City when that pretty clearly isn't so. She seems to have conveniently forgotten that Maliki sent envoys to Tehran begging them to tell al Sadr to quit fighting. They did.

One more thing. She notes that Iran is supporting the Shia militias, but neglects to mention that even Gen. Petraeus said Iran is backing ALL the Shia groups in Iraq, which must include Maliki's Dawa Party. Either that, or Petraeus didn't really mean "all" of them.

As for Iraq becoming an ally of Isreal? I don't know about that. It might turn out to be true or it might just be wishful thinking. It is true that Israeli re-construction teams are working pretty much without hindrance in Iraq right now and that's significant. However, that may change when American troops leave and will surely change the closer Maliki draws to Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by LAPB:
Hi!
It seems to me that the 'news summary' presented here is from the 'Fars' Iranian news agency. A news agency of a totalitarian regime spins the news so that they look like they have the upper hand. I think you will be impressed/encouraged by the analysis of Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post, English language Israeli newspaper of the Malilki visit to Iran.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=121265972285...JPArticle%2FShowFull

I guess she knows who sent the bomb. Probably by the return address?

The Israelis will put just as much spin on a given event as the Iranians will. The truth will lie somewhere in between.

I find it interesting that so far the Iraqis haven't overtly sent anyone to Israel AFAIK. I think that the prospect of Israel and Iraq sipping soda from the same glass is a wee bit of a stretch. Iraq is far more interested in it's relations with it's nearest neighbor right now.

quote:

Originally posted by samh32:

quote:

Originally posted by gzo2:
Stillkit, do you know where Maliki was back in the 70s?

Their is an Oil Company out of Calif. called Unical. Back in those
days he was the Ambassador of the middle east for Unical Oil. Does`nt
it seem kinda strange what he did back then and what he does now.

Is that you in the avatar, and if so , what are you working on?

Yes, that`s me back in the 70s. I am working on a TA-312 or in commo terms. Just a telephone. I was assigned to an 8 inch Howitzer unit back
then. I was`nt really supposed to work on them, but since I could read
an eletrical schematics and could solder wiring. The unit let me fix the
equipment. Other wise it would have to be sent to 699th MN Battalion and
it usually took about 6 months to get something repaired. I even got to
work on an old SB 86 switchboard one time. But most was just basic
installation and operation of telephones and radios and switchboards.
With a little pole climbing once in awhile to string some telephone lines.
In 75 while at Fort Ord I was with some of the people that got to string
the cable for cable tv back in the day.

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by gzo2:
Stillkit, do you know where Maliki was back in the 70s?

Their is an Oil Company out of Calif. called Unical. Back in those
days he was the Ambassador of the middle east for Unical Oil. Does`nt
it seem kinda strange what he did back then and what he does now.

No stranger than Afghan President Kharzi being a lawyer for a Houston firm which represented Chevron. Or, Chevron's SS Condoleeza Rice. Or that John McCain's wife sits on the Board of Conoco/Phillips. Or that Ahmed Chalabi has long, personal and business ties with Paul Wolfowitz (or that he's wanted for embezzling millions from his own bank in Jordan.)

Chevron has a tanker named The Condoleeza Rice that was in service for
about 8-10 years before she went into politics.

quote:

Originally posted by gzo2:

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by gzo2:
Stillkit, do you know where Maliki was back in the 70s?

Their is an Oil Company out of Calif. called Unical. Back in those
days he was the Ambassador of the middle east for Unical Oil. Does`nt
it seem kinda strange what he did back then and what he does now.

No stranger than Afghan President Kharzi being a lawyer for a Houston firm which represented Chevron. Or, Chevron's SS Condoleeza Rice. Or that John McCain's wife sits on the Board of Conoco/Phillips. Or that Ahmed Chalabi has long, personal and business ties with Paul Wolfowitz (or that he's wanted for embezzling millions from his own bank in Jordan.)

Chevron has a tanker named The Condoleeza Rice that was in service for
about 8-10 years before she went into politics.

In the Spring of 2001, just after Rice was named as Bushs' National Security Advisor, it was quietly renamed the SS Altair Voyager.